| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposed layout of the development would be inadequate resulting in substandard
accommodation for future residents through lack of internal space, poor outlook, limited
light and poor quality amenity space provision, detrimental to future residential amenity and contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (as amended), the DCLG Technical Housing Standards and the Residential Design SPD. |
| 2. | The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its excessive width, two storey gable roofed front projection, fenestration, lower eaves height, siting and proximity to the western boundary of the site, appear dominant, visually intrusive and incongruous in the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 3. | The proposed flatted block would, by reason of its crown roof and high eaves line, appear overbearing, visually intrusive and incongruous in the streetscene when viewed from Amberley Way harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 4. | The proposed flats, would by reason of their height, scale, bulk, mass, siting, and position close to the boundaries of the site, be an unneighbourly development and appear dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive in the rear garden environment and the first floor balcony of flat No. 6 would result in undue overlooking and loss of privacy harmful to the amenity neighbouring properties particularly No.'s 19a and 25a Essex Road contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD. |
| 5. | The proposal, by reason of the creation of one, four bedroom, seven person dwelling combined with no off street car parking provision for the proposed property, would result in increased parking congestion in surrounding streets. The proposal, by reason of the creation of nine, two bedroom residential units and the cumulative impact of the width and siting of the access road and the lack of pedestrian visibility splays and a turning head would impede the vehicular entry and egress of the site harmful to highway and pedestrian safety contrary to Policies DC32, DC33 and DC34 of the Local Development Framework and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 6. | In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards the demand for school places arising from the development, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the infrastructure impact of the development, contrary to the provisions of Policies DC29 and DC72 of the Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan. |
| 7. | Statement Required by Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: Consideration was given to seeking amendments, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to Ms Nwanosike via email on 10th August 2017. |
| 8. | The proposal, if granted planning permission on appeal, would be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be £12,180. Further details with regard to CIL are available from the Council's website. |
